‘The Charity Commission opened a compliance case in 2015 into Gurdwara Guru Nanak Parkash in Coventry and has now issued an official warning to the trustees under s 75A(1)(a) Charities Act 2011 on the grounds that “a breach of trust or duty or other misconduct or mismanagement has been committed by or in connection with the control and management of the charity as charity trustees”. This is only the second time the Commission has used its power to issue an official warning’

‘In Tayo & Ors (Trustees of Manchester New Moston Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2017] UKUT 134 (TCC), the trustees of Manchester New Moston Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses lost their appeal against the First Tier Tribunal’s refusal in 2015 – which we noted at the time – to review the Charity Commission’s decision to open a statutory inquiry into the charity under s 46 Charities Act 2011.’

‘A Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation in Manchester has lost a legal attempt to block an investigation into its handling of sexual abuse allegations, after failing to convince a judge that the inquiry amounted to religious discrimination.’

‘he UK’s main Jehovah’s Witnesses charity has dropped efforts to block an investigation into how it handled allegations of sexual abuse, including of children, after a legal fight lasting more than two years.’

‘The Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v Charity Commission was striking from many points of view. Mr Kennedy was a journalist frustrated by the way the Commission handled his allegations concerning George Galloway MP’s controversial Iraq charity, the Miriam Appeal. He applied for disclosure of documents under the Freedom of Information Act, arguing that a prohibition from disclosure under s 32 should be interpreted compatibly with Article 10, as required by s 3 of the HRA. However, the Supreme Court declined to follow the recent ECtHR case law, holding that Article 10 did not encompass a right of access to information, deprecating the parties’ failure to rely upon the common law right to information and disagreeing over the question of whether proportionality should replace Wednesbury unreasonableness: see my previous post on this here.’

‘The Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation is under increasing pressure to address its handling of sexual abuse allegations as it faces legal setbacks, bills of over £1m and a fight to prevent the Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims.’

‘Following three trials of former members of Jehovah’s Witnesses’s congregations on charges of historic sex abuse the Charity Commission decided to initiate a statutory inquiry relating to a leading Jehovah’s Witness charity’s safeguarding policy regarding vulnerable beneficiaries in particular children, under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011, and to order the charity to produce a wide range of documents, under section 52 of the Act, even though none of those accused was connected with the charity. .The applicants, the charity and its trustees, sought judicial review of those decisions, on the grounds that (i) the commission had acted disproportionately by commencing an inquiry the scope of which was vague and undefined and by interfering with the applicants’ Convention rights, and had thereby breached its duty to act fairly so that the decision was irrational; and (ii) the scope of the production order was disproportionate in that information was sought of a personal and sensitive nature, within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and was furthermore in breach of the Convention rights of individuals affected. The judge in refusing permission to proceed with the judicial review clain held that the applicants had an effective statutory remedy by appealing to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Charity) against a decision to initiate an inquiry, and that any complaint relating to the breadth of a production order could be dealt with before that tribunal.’

‘More than a quarter of the statutory investigations that have been launched by the Charity Commission since April 2012 and remain open have targeted Muslim organisations, an analysis by the Guardian can reveal – drawing criticism from Islamic groups that they are being unfairly singled out.’

‘Where a charitable trust held donations intended for other charities nominated by members of the public, and there was a shortfall between the funds held by the charitable trust and the donations, it was just and appropriate to treat the unpaid charities as participants in a common misfortune brought about by the management of the donation scheme. Those charities should bear that burden equally as to the distribution of the remaining funds.’

‘Where a charitable trust held donations intended for other charities nominated by members of the public, and there was a shortfall between the funds held by the charitable trust and the donations, it was just and appropriate to treat the unpaid charities as participants in a common misfortune brought about by the management of the donation scheme. Those charities should bear that burden equally as to the distribution of the remaining funds.’

‘Following the Supreme Court’s lengthy, slightly unexpected, and difficult to grasp judgment in Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20 (on which I have been quiet because of my involvement, but see Tom Cross’s blogpost here) there has been room for quite a large amount of debate as to how far it goes. Was the majority only suggesting access to the Charity Commission’s information under the common law principle of open justice applied because of the particular statutory regime and/or the nature of the statutory inquiry involved? Or was the principle rather more wide-ranging?’

‘On 26 March 2014 the Supreme Court gave a lengthy judgment in Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20, running to 248 paragraphs. The Supreme Court decision is full of surprises. The Court decided to depart from the arguments of the parties- the majority insisted that common law rights rather than the Human Rights Act were the key to the case; and then embarked on an extended and wide ranging obiter discussion of public law issues, revealing further disagreements between the Justices.’

‘The Freedom of Information Act 2000 did not provide an exhaustive scheme in respect of the disclosure of information held by the Charity Commission relating to inquiries which they conducted. Although an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of that 2000 Act from disclosure under that Act lasted beyond the completion of such an inquiry, the question whether disclosure of information relating to such an inquiry was available would be governed by the Charities Act 1993, as substituted by the Charities Act 2006, construed in the light of common law principles.’